284 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



and Senate voted against the appropriations.' 

 Who violated the Constitution ? Did the Dem- 

 ocrats who voted to make the appropriations 

 violate the Constitution ? Did the Republicans 

 who voted not to make the appropriations sup- 

 port the Constitution? The Senator says it is 

 a constitutional duty to make appropriations. 

 I admit it. Why was it that appropriations 

 were not voted by the Forty-fifth Congress to 

 support the army and to carry on the Govern- 

 ment? It was because every Republican in 

 this body rallied and defeated the bill making 

 appropriations for t&at purpose. There is the 

 record. Let us get the facts right, and I will 

 attend to the excuses afterward. The uncon- 

 stitutional act of voting against appropriations 

 was done by the Republican party. The con- 

 stitutional duty of voting for appropriations 

 was performed by every Democrat in both 

 Houses. How, then, can it be charged over 

 the country that the Democratic party is re- 

 sponsible for the failure of the appropria- 

 tions ? 



" Not only was that true in the Forty-fifth 

 Congress, but it is true of the Forty-sixth. 

 This Congress was called together, and every 

 Democrat in both Houses voted for a bill ap- 

 propriating money to support the army, all 

 that the departments demand and need. Every 

 Republican in both Houses voted against it. 

 If it is unconstitutional to refuse appropria- 

 tions, who has refused appropriations ? But 

 the Senator is right again. If it is a constitu- 

 tional duty on the part of Representatives and 

 Senators to vote for appropriations, it is equal- 

 ly a constitutional duty on the part of the 

 Executive to approve the appropriation bill, 

 because under the forms of the Constitution 

 every bill has to go to him for approval or dis- 

 approval. The appropriations can not be made 

 by a majority of Congress without the concur- 

 rence of the President ; and, therefore, it is 

 just as unconstitutional for the President to 

 defeat an appropriation as for Congress to do 

 so. The President has done it in this case, but 

 they say there are excuses for it. 



" The first question I wish to put to the Sen- 

 ator is this : What excuse can justify a man in 

 doing an unconstitutional act? The Senator 

 says it is unconstitutional to vote against ap- 

 propriations. What excuse can justify a man 

 in voting against an appropriation ? What 

 excuse can justify the President therefore in 

 vetoing an appropriation bill ? I think it must 

 be conceded on all hands that no man can be 

 justified in doing an unconstitutional thing for 

 any reason less than the preservation of the 

 Constitution itself. Now, what are the excuses 

 offered in this case ? The excuse is the general 

 legislation that was attached to the appropria- 

 tion bill. What was the form of that legisla- 

 tion? First, it is admitted to be usual and 

 constitutional. The Senator from New York 

 himself admits that. The Senator from New 

 York goes further, and says that so far as the 

 mere form is concerned any bill which Con- 



gress has the power to pass can be attached to 

 an appropriation bill, and, unless the President 

 can find cause on its merits, it is difficult to 

 see how the veto of such a bill could be sus- 

 tained; and the Senator is right. The form 

 was usual and constitutional. So the President 

 can not be justified in vetoing the bill, nor can 

 the gentlemen on the other side be justified in 

 voting against the bill because of the form, if 

 the form of the bill is usual and constitutional. 

 Mark you, they say to vote against the bill is 

 unconstitutional. To refuse an appropriation 

 (and every man by his vote against an ap- 

 propriation does refuse it) is unconstitutional. 

 Then you can not plead that you do not like 

 the form for the purpose of justifying the un- 

 constitutional act. Then take the substance of 

 the bill. What is it ? It is nothing in the 

 world but to repeal certain legislation. That 

 is constitutional. The Senator from New York 

 would admit that Congress has a right to re- 

 peal those acts ; that it is constitutional to re- 

 peal the acts we seek to repeal. 



" Mr. President, I advance to a more signifi- 

 cant proposition, one which I consider still 

 more important than any that has been dis- 

 cussed. You can not believe that this great 

 party, led by such intelligent gentlemen, is 

 simply influenced, and influenced alone, by a 

 desire to control an election. There is a great- 

 er significance. I will not say the manifest 

 purpose, but I will say the logical tendency of 

 the doctrines which have been advanced, and 

 which are in perfect consonauce with the his- 

 tory of the Republican party, is the destruc- 

 tion of the States as an element in the charac- 

 ter of this Union. Take the argument of the 

 Senator from New York. Let me read what 

 he said. The Senator from New York said: 



" In the city of New York all the thugs and shoul- 

 der-hitters and repeaters, all the carriers of slung- 

 shots, dirks, and bludgeons, all the fraternity of the 

 bucket-shops, the rat-pits, the hells, and the slums, 

 all the graduates of the nurseries of modern so-called 

 democracy [laughter], all those who employ and incite 

 them, from King's Bridge to the Battery, are to be 

 told in advance that on the day when the million peo- 

 ple around them choose their members of the National 

 Legislature, no matter what God-daring or man-hurt- 

 ing enormities they may commit, no matter what they 

 do, nothing they can do will meet with the slightest 

 resistance from any national soldier or armed man 

 clothed with national authority. 



"Now, does the Senator from New York 

 mean to say (and his argument is utterly 

 worthless unless he does mean to say so) that 

 protection from thugs and shoulder-hitters and 

 the various unnamable bad men that he enu- 

 merates is impossible in New York except 

 through the national soldiery, except through 

 the arm of the National Government ? Is that 

 what the honorable Senator means ? Yet that 

 ia what he says. He says that every one of 

 these terrible characters is to be told that he 

 may commit any enormity he pleases ; he can 

 not be interfered with by any national soldiery. 

 That is all true ; but does it therefore follow 

 that they can do these great crimes with im- 



